Legal Tender: Towards Government Backing of Electronic Currency Jon Neuleib INTRODUCTION If it is true that money makes the world go around, does the world spin faster when money can circle the globe in a fraction of a second? “Money” itself comes in multiple such as coins or paper, negotiable bonds, and now bits of data residing on computer servers or pulses of light flowing through a fiber optic network . Changes in currency are causing ripple effects in everything from crime to the stability of governments.[1] One of the most significant challenges will come from the move to electronic currency. Electronic currency is the attempt to create an electronic and networked system “modeled after our paper money system.”[2] This note will explore the nature of electronic currency and the challenges it presents for lawmakers. Electronic currency has economic advantages, but it also has disadvantages including the risks of increased money laundering, fraud and more difficult enforcement actions for governments. Electronic currency combines aspects of traditional tangible currency, like paper and coins, with the technological advancements of debit cards and electronic networks. From traditional currency come the aspects of anonymity and ease of use. From the more technologically advanced side come lightning fast transfers and limitless size. This note is not simply an examination of electronic currency, however. It argues for national backing of electronic currency by the United States government. To examine the plausibility and advantages of this approach it will be necessary to look at currency in the context of legal, technological and political changes. Part One is an overview of the changing nature of currency as new technologies interact with money. Part Two examines the current regulatory approaches that are being taken to control electronic currency transactions. Part Three is a comparison between private electronic currencies and a nationally backed “public” currency. Parts Four and Five apply the advantages of a nationally backed electronic currency to the areas of fraud and money laundering, respectively. The final segment, Part Six, looks at the far-reaching implications of electronic currencies for nation-states themselves. THE CHANGING NATURE OF CURRENCY The history of currency is generally seen as a progression from barter to natural objects (such as shells or cattle), to coin, to paper, to electronic form.[3] One of the critical junctures in the history of currency is when the notes or coins stop being a representation of some other, inherently valuable object such as gold. This form of currency is referred to as fiat money.[4] A currency is virtual as soon as it stops being tied to a material object backing its worth. This step occurs well before the introduction of an electronic payment system. Currency has been a technology for representing absent value for decades in this country.[5] Modern currencies have their values determined by an interaction of political and market forces. Using law to control currency has been beset with problems that can only be avoided with smart economic and legal choices. History shows that not all governments have been up to this task with almost all nations having had to abandon their currencies at some point in the 20th Century.[6] The move to an electronic currency presents a new challenge that demands an understanding of law, technology and economics. Electronic currency is an inexact term used to describe an electronic transaction that functions more like a cash exchange and less like a credit card charge.[7] The term encompasses everything from stored value debit cards, online bill payment, e-coins, and virtual banking to the electronic brokerage systems of international currency traders.[8] The difference between electronic currency and other forms of electronic payment is that the issuer backs currency. There is no need for a recipient of the funds to trust the person with whom they are transacting as long as they trust the issuer. With cash, people trust the government and there is no need for them to know the identity of the person paying them. Electronic currency is a technology that promises to bring this level of ease of use and anonymity to cashless transactions whether they happen on the internet or face-to-face. A transaction with electronic currency places real (if intangible) funds into a seller’s account whereas an electronic payment system places only a promise to pay in that account.[9] The technological leap of electronic currency is that it breaks the dependent relationship between the buyer and seller. Currency has always been a technology, but it is a technology controlled and created by laws.[10] It is a tool used to mark, move, and maintain value.[11] Modern currencies, whether electronic or not, do not have inherent values, but rather represent a claim against the institution that issued the note.[12] The move to electronic currency is not money becoming technology, but rather a moment at which money may reveal itself as technology. Currency stores value whether it is in the form of cash in a wallet or a microchip on a plastic card. What is remarkable about our current system is that people have very few qualms about the value of the pieces of paper that they carry with them. Currency is, in some ways, a technology of faith. People have faith in the government and that translates into faith in the value of currency. In a nation like the United States, that faith has not been tested. Electronic currency provides a technological innovation that may require people to have faith in companies and other private actors rather than the government. In the contemporary structure of the nation-state, currency is a construct of the state.[13] Money is not so much controlled by law, as created by it. At the simplest level, the actual ability to create physical currency is function of law.[14] At the more theoretical level, a government’s ability to control fiscal and monetary policy is also a function of law.[15] The role of nation-states in the creation of currency is currently taken for granted, but the history of the 19th Century in this country shows that a nationally, centrally controlled currency is not inevitable, nor a teleological certainty.[16] In the antebellum period, currency could be issued by almost anyone and there were 8,000 different state banks issuing currencies in 1860.[17] Laws that change the status of currency have eventually led to changes in the political structures that created those laws themselves.[18] Forms of electronic currency in the hands of private actors such as brokerage houses, credit card companies, banks or Paypal are all still traded in dollar denominations. The value assigned to the unit of currency has much more to do with the U.S. government’s policies than Citibank’s. Moving to a nationally backed electronic currency would not take the money out of these private actors’ hands, but it would increase the certainty about the value and trustworthiness of funds traded electronically. CURRENT REGULATORY SCHEMES Current regulatory schemes are marked by a reluctance to interfere with the technological development of the private sector.[19] There is a widely held belief that technology must mature in the private sector, first, before it is subjected to regulation.[20] Current attempts to write laws controlling electronic currency seek to regulate its development in the private sector by using traditional banking and commercial paper approaches.[21] The controls that have been implemented and those that are being discussed will not create a true electronic currency, but will merely provide electronic versions of secured transactions.[22] Although this avoids stifling the private sector, it is unclear that it will provide the confidence that consumers need to trust the system and make it a robust market of users and providers. With companies such as Microsoft looking to privatize the means of exchange based on these regulations, it is unclear that consumers will be well-served by the wait-and-see approach to the regulation of electronic currency.[23] In Part Six, this note considers whether nation-states could lose the present level of control that they have over currencies. While that is not an inevitable result, the present course of regulation will lead to competing private currencies and not the adoption of a nationally backed electronic currency. Implementing new laws governing electronic currency demands that lawmakers understand the nature of the challenge they are facing.[24] An early look at the future of electronic currency in the infancy of the internet listed a long shopping list of electronic currency attributes: security, reliability, scalability, anonymity, acceptability, customer base, flexibility, convertibility, efficiency, ease of integration, and ease of use.[25] This rather exhaustive list describes both the factors necessary for effective implementation and those required by consumers to adopt a new system.[26] These factors describe an ideal system and the current use of credit cards over the internet suggests that consumers are willing to undertake transactions without all of these factors in place.[27] Additionally, the guidelines that policy makers are using are considerably less stringent than those advocated by academic writers.[28] There have been some very concrete efforts to regulate electronic currency, but their implementation has been neither uniform nor far-reaching.[29] There have been essentially